The Burden of Nuclear Secrets: Buying Organic Can’t Save You

By Isabelle Naimo

A focus on personal health has become more popular recently. More people are willing to spend the extra cash on organic and non-GMO food; yoga has become a popular exercise to decrease the stress of everyday life and it seems like many prioritize fitness in general. I’m not an exception to this – I’m borderline obsessed with making sure I’m eating a whole food, plant-based diet, as much as possible. If I do eat something processed my anxiety gets so high that I almost convince myself that I will get cancer from it. And my obsession doesn’t stop with nutrition. I’ve completely rid my cosmetics and personal hygiene items of any scary, hard-to-pronounce chemicals that can wreck havoc on health. Basically, if it’s not good enough for me to eat, it’s not good enough to put on my skin either.

I almost started to believe I was truly a healthy person… until I realized how everyone and everything on this earth are connected. Herbicides and pesticides, air pollution, superfunds, the list is endless. So many toxins everyday surround us and they’re finding their way into our bodies through the water and soil. I have spent so much time focused on quality skincare and organic food that I’m totally blindsided by one of the largest threats – nuclear waste.

Into Eternity was honestly like watching a horrifying prelude to another installment of The Chernobyl Diaries. The documentary focuses on storing nuclear waste underground and whether or not that’s even possible.  Nuclear waste lasts for up to 100,000 years so in order for it to be safely stored underground – out of sight, out of mind – it would have to go that long untouched, and nothing in human history has been undisturbed for that long.

The particular site in question is called Onkalo or “hiding place.” Into Eternity is unique because Director Michael Madsen attempts to narrate towards future generations. This trait ultimately connects to another troubling fact – if Onkalo has to withstand 100,000 years, how will people of future generations learn about its dangers? Call me a “Debbie Downer” but it almost seems inevitable that someone is going to mess with it and unleash havoc on all of Finland (or the world?). And even besides human intervention, the underground wasteland has to endure 100,000 years of earthquakes and other natural disasters. Madsen interviews several different people throughout the film and while there are no answers, the one thing that remains universal is that the dangers of Onkalo are frightening, worth addressing, and in the end a complete mystery.

Blind, an emotional Japanese short film, makes me think of what nuclear sites like Onkalo have in store for us in the upcoming years. The video follows a man throughout his everyday activities – the only peculiarity being that everyone is wearing gas masks. The man encounters a little girl who takes off her mask, exposing stitches on her neck. The stitches made me think that the toxic air the girl has been inhaling into her lungs since birth were the cause. The film ends with a powerful message, “turning away from today’s reality will blind our future.”

Another YouTube-found video exposing nuclear issues is “A Time-Lapse Map of Every Nuclear Explosion Since 1945” by Isao Hashimoto. The video documents nuclear explosions around the globe from 1945 to 1998 and keeps a tally of each one. It was unsettling, to say the least, to see just how frequently and widespread these explosions are. The end tally is 2,053 explosions. Obviously the video isn’t up to date which may the most unsettling thing about it.

If I could describe Kristen Iversen’s Full Body Burden in one word it would be: real. I wasn’t a fan of the futuristic fantasy world created in The Year of The Flood so it was refreshing to be welcomed into Iversen’s quaint hometown of Arvada, Colorado. However, Full Body Burden isn’t just Iversen’s autobiography into her childhood. She does welcome the reader into her family’s lives: her father the lawyer, her mother the stay-at-home mom, her siblings and the family pets. But she also talks about a nearby nuclear plant, Rocky Flats, where many local fathers found employment. This contrast in narrative left me intrigued; it added mystery and a touch of intense journalism. I also really enjoy the “Pleasantville” sort of aspect – wholesome family residing in a picturesque neighborhood but in reality there are secrets brewing behind closed doors. 

Rocky Flats was actually responsible for nuclear accidents that clouded the air of nearby cities and caused cancer, birth defects, and poisoned water supply. Iversen finds herself ill due to the “full body burden” of living near Rocky Flats. She eloquently relates the dangers of toxic waste to the dangers of keeping secrets; “My family never talks about feelings … It’s hard to take something seriously if you can’t see it, smell it, touch it, or feel it.” For those who weren’t experiencing the effects of Rocky Flats first hand, it was easy to criticize and ignore the signs.

Iversen also comes clean about secrets within her family. As stated previously, they never spoke about feelings. That sense of secrecy applied to her father’s alcoholism and her mother’s addiction to prescription pills, far from the “Pleasantville” image previously created. In an interview with the website Read It Forward, Iversen states how talking about such private topics in the novel actually brought her clarity about the circumstances.

Perhaps one of the most frightening things about nuclear explosions and toxic waste is what Iversen says about Rocky Flats – “We weren’t supposed to know … and now we’re supposed to forget it ever existed.” As seen in Isao Hashimoto’s video, nuclear explosions happen all around the globe. A site similar to Rocky Flats could be in our own backyards and yet many of us continue to live as if our health isn’t being threatened everyday. Our homes are becoming a wasteland of nuclear toxins. So, when will we begin to educate our neighbors and ourselves? When will we begin to address the secrets?

Portraits of activism

By Isabelle Naimo

It wouldn’t be farfetched to say that change is human nature. Many of us are constantly seeking out greener pastures. Whether it is the desire to travel, longing for a bigger house in a nicer neighborhood, changing our hairstyles or improving our skin, finding a new career, shedding those extra pounds before bikini season, or any other changes, we are always looking out for ways to improve our lives and ourselves. Julia Corbett in the last chapter of her book Communicating Nature says, “When someone seeks change, it signals a dissatisfaction with the way things are now.” Personal changes such as a new diet or renovating a home can be minuscule but that drive, that motivation, to take action is what makes this trait of human nature something admirable and inspiring.

Hollywood tried to capture a story of activism in the movie The East. Directed by Zal Batmanglij, The East follows an operative, portrayed by Ellen Page, for an elite private intelligence firm as she attempts to infiltrate an underground eco-terrorism organization. The film’s line-up, also featuring Alexander Skarsgard, Toby Kebbell, and Brit Marling, strive to give the story life but good acting can only do so much. Unfortunately, I didn’t find the chemistry between Page and Skarsgard’s characters believable and the plot fell a little short. Overall, The East failed to be a film about activism through its habit of relaying too heavily on stereotypes; for example – the activists all came off like rich brats with an attitude for angst. One scene that distinctively comes to mind is when Sarah, Brit Marling’s character, was taken to The East in need of help. Instead of lending a helping hand, the group treated her with hostility and isolation. The writer’s intentions are noble but they poorly took on such a vast and complex subject and failed to really say anything other than “big corporations are bad.”

I found Bidder 70 to be a powerful story of activism. I think in part due to the fact that the main subject, Tim DeChristopher, was a college student like myself, who couldn’t quietly stand by and let the darkness of energy and mining companies prevail over Utah’s wilderness. DeChristopher’s reluctance to stand by and sacrifice of his own freedom (he landed himself in jail) ignited a movement for climate justice. Technically speaking, the film is modest – it’s nothing that’s going to give you that “WOW” factor – but the beauty of that is that it serves as a sort of portrait for ideal American values: selflessness, patriotism, and liberty. Bidder 70 goes beyond modesty with an inspiring message that any ordinary citizen can fight for justice. 

Tales of activism certainly took a unique, and rather trippy, spin in Margaret Atwood’s novel The Year of the Flood. As a reader, I felt very much unprepared as I was introduced into this post-apocalyptic world. Without having read her other works, I was a little lost until I was able to grasp onto the plot line. The story is in different points of view, varying from a third person view from one of the two main characters Toby to Ren’s first person point of view. I found Ren’s part of the novel more easy to connect with and easier to follow. The usage of “I” really helped me to develop a relationship with Ren. Through her viewpoint, readers learn that she worked as a stripper and reading some of the obscene sexual acts she had to perform really brought on this feeling of disgust and empathy. Since her story is told in first person, I believe it allows us as readers to find a certain depth that wasn’t in Toby’s chronicle. 

Margaret Atwood tackles many different real life themes throughout The Year of the Flood. Given, Atwood’s world is pretty out there – pigs have human brains, sheep have human hair, people actually consume the ‘meat’ from a joint called SecretBurgers, and there’s a deadly plague outbreak. There’s definitely an issue of women’s rights in this world. One prime example of this is the legalization of the sex industry. Women are viewed as commodities and this can be seen in Ren’s pole dancing profession and Toby being the victim of sexual assault at the hands of her perverse boss.  Atwood also covers environmentalism. The novel features a group referred to as the Gardeners. They condemn harm to any living organism, from a stepping on an earthworm to eating a cow, frown upon materialism, and avoid using anything non-recyclable. The Gardeners believe that it’s God’s purpose for them to survive the flood and go on to pretty much breed a generation of tree-hugging vegan hippies.

Another prominent theme, similar to that found in The East and Bidder 70, is corporate corruption and control. The world is split into two social classes – basically the corporate vs. the poor. The police, known as the CorpSeCorp Men, are corrupt and unsettlingly powerful. Atwood’s use of allegory allows The Year of the Flood to serve as a warning for readers. Even though these themes are set in a very imaginative future, we could be heading towards similar consequences if our already troubled society manages to escalate to this altitude.

There is no single correct way to define “activism” or to determine what makes someone an activist. Smallville’s Oliver Queen said it best in the show’s fourth episode of the final season, entitled “Homecoming.”  When Queen is accused of comparing himself to an American fallen hero, he proclaims, “[John F. Kennedy] saw the hero in all of us. I'm not dwelling on revenge for past atrocities or looking ahead to what I can personally gain from a few tax breaks, drilling oil wells in the ocean. In this world of armchair bloggers who created a generation of critics instead of leaders, I'm actually doing something, right here, right now, for the city, for my country. And I'm not doing it alone.” I have always found this quote to be completely moving, simply because of how authentic it is. It’s important to realize that we don’t need to have corporate power or an army behind us to make a change. We don’t have to consider ourselves environmentalists. We also don’t need to make a documentary or write a novel to be an activist. All we have to do is find our own voice and actually do something.

Factory Farming: Friend or Foe? Countries Across the Globe Claim Foe

By Isabelle Naimo

Industrial livestock production, more commonly known as factory farming, refers to the modern methods of keeping and raising livestock at larger scales and in higher densities than in more old-fashion traditional ways of animal agriculture. Animals such as cattle, poultry, hogs, and even fish are crammed in confinement until they’re slaughtered for their meat.

Factory farming has become a widespread practice in developed nations. It has become the more popular option compared to smaller scaled animal agriculture (for example, local family owned farms) due to its ability to produce the highest output while still keeping costs low, a benefit its supporters view as essential for feeding the ever growing global population. But it’s not without faults – artificial methods, such as growth hormones and vitamin supplements, are usually needed to maintain the health of the animals, as well as to improve production. And in regard to overcrowded living conditions, factory farming usually requires the use of antibiotics and pesticides to control the spread of infection and disease amongst the animals. Such practices have caused factory farming to go under fire with much speculation and debate in recent years due to growing health concerns, animal cruelty and welfare issues, and the potential environmental impact. Several different media outlets across the world have addressed these topics in recent years.

TIME Magazine is an American weekly news magazine based out of New York City. Bryan Walsh addressed meat production’s environmental concerns in his 2013 article “The Triple Whopper Environmental Impact of Global Meat Production.” In his article, Walsh addresses that 40% of the world’s land surface is used for food production and 30% of it is not utilized for harvesting fruits, vegetables, and grains but to support the mass amounts of farm animals that we ‘eventually’ eat. 

While livestock production feeds the population’s demand for animal products and provides financial income for billions of people, Walsh states that it uses “one-third of the world’s fresh water” and “there may be no other single human activity that has a bigger impact on the planet than the raising of livestock.” However, not all livestock production is created equal. Walsh turns to the International Livestock Research Institute in Kenya, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) in Australia and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria and their research of livestock production from different regions around the world, from factory farming in developed nations to other approaches used in lesser-developed nations. One staggering fact is,

“The highest total of livestock-related greenhouse-gas emissions comes from the developing world, which accounts for 75% of the global emissions from cattle and other ruminants and 56% of the global emissions from poultry and pigs.”

But despite the huge environmental hit factory farming causes and setting aside criticism of animal cruelty and public health risks due to air and water pollution, he suggests, “it can be remarkably efficient.” 

In the end, it all resorts back to the vast differences in animal agriculture depending on the region. For example, in some regions grain is too precious that it wouldn’t be feasible to use them for the animals but in other developing areas of the world, livestock production can be tremendously economically beneficial. When it comes to America though – factory farming and levels of meat consumption need to change in the future in order to prevent further environmental and health impact. Overall, Walsh effectively presents factual data and statistics to his readers. As a reader, whether your stance is for or against, he’s convincing that factory farming is anything but a black or white issue.

I came across an older 2011 interview with Bryan Walsh by CNN – a mainstream news media outlet – regarding the threat factory farming poses in a live segment entitled “Move To End Factory Farms.” I typically don’t watch mainstream news so I was pleasantly surprised to see them addressing these issues. It was refreshing to hear such a popular, renowned television outlet leaving the sugar coating in the cabinet and exposing not only inside footage of factory farms but the effect cheap and unhealthy meat is having on America’s health and waistlines. It’s easier for the common audience to simply “hear” or “read” about an issue and brush it off, maybe because they’re a conspiracy theorist or were only reading but not absorbing facts. But when it’s aired across the country and they’re seeing the reality, it’s much harder to deny.

BBC News, or the British Broadcasting Corporation, is a broadcasting news organization hailing from the United Kingdom. Matt McGrath, an environmental correspondent for the corporation, in 2014 focused on the environmental damage beef production alone has on the planet – claiming “Beef environment cost 10 times that of other livestock.” McGrath gets his information from a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences where researchers used data over a decade from the US department of agriculture as a way to calculate the total resources needed for livestock production. McGrath cuts down the research into quick and painless summaries, cutting to the chase so fast I couldn’t formulate an opposition even if I wanted.

The study cited not only included greenhouse gas emissions from the production of the animal’s feed but those that resulted from digestion and manure. Scientists found that due to the cattle’s low energy conversion from what they eat that it results in beef having the biggest environmental impact. McGrath points out, “Cattle release five times more greenhouse gas and consume six times more nitrogen than eggs or poultry.” Although the exact numbers found refer to US livestock, the carbon footprint of cattle in Europe would still be much more than that of poultry, pork, and eggs.  

His solution? Well, it would be a herbivore’s dream to see a mainstream media outlet urge it’s viewers to adopt an exclusive plant-based diet but it’s not necessary. A professor involved in the study says, "In fact, eliminating beef, and replacing it with relatively efficiency animal-based alternatives such as eggs, can achieve an environmental improvement comparable to switching to plant food source."

In 2013 Michael Kirby wrote “Factory farming masks meat’s true costs” for ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). The piece differs from those found in TIME Magazine and BBC News because Kirby focuses on incorporating his own personal opinion instead of relaying strictly on scientific data and research studies. Kirby notes that animals were raised in a traditional way in Australia a few decades ago but now close to 95% of livestock is factory farmed. Factory farming decreases the value of meat, making cheap meat a right and furthermore, allowing the common Australian to eat meat at least three times per day. Kirby poetically writes, “The sticker price is far from the real price. There are enormous costs to be paid, by the environment, by our health, and by the 500 million animals suffering on Australian factory farms. If those costs are considered, we are facing some very important questions.”

Kirby is able to shock readers into agreeing with his opinions when he writes in details about factory farmed turkeys. The typical factory farmed turkey lives only 12 weeks out of their natural lifespan of 10 years. In those short weeks leading to slaughter, they’re bred to pack on the pounds as fast as possible. They grow so large that their joints are often painful and their own legs can’t support their body weight. Kirby notes that they’re also susceptible to heart disease and questions, “Who would consider that eating those unfortunate animals could be part of a healthy diet?” 

I found the most powerful part of Kirby’s article to be when he addresses the reality that most people don’t consider what their meat really once was. “They prefer not to consider that it is at the cost of the life of a sentient being. They prefer not to acknowledge that those animals, who feel pain and fear as we do, are forced to be our food, or to acknowledge that most are kept in appalling conditions and endure a life of immense deprivation, with no compassion to alleviate their pain.” It’s a sad reality that billions of animals are brought into this world to live a sufferable life just to die for human consumption. As a result our environment is declining, as well as, our health. 

As of 2014, The New Zealand Labour Party seems to be taking a proactive approach to factory farming issues, announcing it would ban all factory farming by 2017. The Labour Party came to this conclusion, however, not because of the environmental devastation being caused or because of health concerns, instead because animal activists have been releasing footage of the horrors found on factory farms. In this particular case, the horrors of hog farms.

Rachel Parkin of 3 News reports that every time a new piece of footage is released the pork board claims, “This is a rogue farm. This is not typical of the industry.”  The Labour Party finally declared that would be enough excuses. Despite the video footage provided that would make any viewer turn their heads in disgust, the reader sees a business perspective in this piece. MP Trevor Mallard is quoted as saying, “If people in Europe see this then we will have trouble getting any of our meat into Europe.” Certainly, this would be fatal for those who earn their income off the pork industry. 

According to the Primary Industries Minister, Nathan Guy, New Zealand aims to have sow stalls gone within a year and hen battery cages out by 2022. Even if they’re successful at banning all factory farms by 2017, that’s still a lot of time the damaging consequences to take affect. Admittedly, it’s better than keeping their blinders on though.

It was surprisingly hard to come across a source supporting factory farming. I did stumble upon a website called Texas Agriculture Talks that had an older 2010 piece suggesting “Factory farming not so bad after all.” I gathered from the website title alone that this wouldn’t be the best place to find a valid argument in support of factory farms and I was exactly right. While the previous news sources had loads of scientific evidence or footage to back up their statements, Gene Hall of Texas Agriculture Talks merely resorted to a few dictionary definitions and vague numbers supporting the low cost and jobs factory farming brings. Hall boasts, “There would be consequences for outlawing this kind of agriculture.” It can be conjured that these consequences refer to a loss in jobs, increase in food costs, and shortages of food. Though, he completely lacks supporting evidence and doesn’t even attempt to debunk environmental and health risk claims. It’s very clear that Texas Agriculture Talks wants to target an audience that’s already set in their ways and not critical thinkers.

I researched various different archives for articles or news stories around the world in attempt to bring more diversity to this argument but it appears that factory farming supporters are few and far between. Usually I can trust the Internet to give me a number of different opinions that are backed up by some study or another, and yet all my google searches came up empty handed. On the contrary, there were endless articles, blogs, YouTube videos, documentaries (Cowspiracy, anyone?) and activism sites bringing awareness to the issues of factory farming. So the verdict seems to be out – factory farm accusations are anything but a false alarm.

It’s pretty unanimous from developed countries around the world that the cons of factory farming far out weight the pros. So, what’s the solution? Luckily, we have a few options and the best way is to stop supporting factory farms by purchasing their meats. Instead, consumers should seek out organic local farms that practice more sustainable agriculture methods. Vendors such as these can be found at your local farmers markets and meeting the people handling your meat face-to-face gives you the opportunity to ask any important questions regarding how they raise their animals. But aside from purchasing local, organic, grass-fed meat and dairy, and organic eggs, there’s always the option to adopt a plant-based meat-free diet. 

Hunting Season: Slavery was once legal too…

By Isabelle Naimo

“If you didn’t know what was going on over here, you’d think this was a town that really loves dolphins and whales…”

-Richard O’Barry

Directed by Louie Psihoyos, The Cove is a 2009 documentary exposing the horrors of Japanese fishing practices while also shining light on the mass slaughters of dolphins and raising concern over the risk of mercury in dolphin meat. It’s a remarkably well-made film in the sense that it can be seen as more of a thriller instead of the usual documentary. Psihoyos and his team go undercover - night vision, hidden identities, and bugged hotel rooms included - to expose what’s really happening in the “cove.”

From the outside the small town of Taiji, Japan appears to be a place full of dolphin and whale lovers. The faces of happy animated whales are painted on billboards and street corners, serve as statues across the town, and shops are filled with whale memorabilia. But the town is hiding a very dark secret – up to 23,000 dolphins are killed every year in Japan. Victims that are not sold for captivity in amusement parks and aquariums are slaughtered and have their meat sold to supermarkets around the globe.

Witnessing The Cove is devastating to say the least. The dolphins’ cries for help gave me chills and the footage of one dolphin desperately thrashing through the water, trying to escape its murder, was enough to bring tears to my eyes. Each time he came up for air he left a trail of blood behind him, until finally he went under and never returned. Nothing was as mortifying though as the overview footage of the “cove.” While the vast ocean is a shade of crisp dark blue, the cove is tainted red in blood – truly a crime scene. Having this image imprinted into the viewer’s mind serves as a method to leave them with enough anger and disgust to seek ways to stop this cruelty.

Aside from animal cruelty, the practice of selling dolphin meat is incredibly irresponsible and deceitful to consumers in regard to the dangerously high levels of mercury. Despite the devastation The Cove left me with, at the very least I was left with satisfaction when the credits roll: Hideki Moronuki was not only fired from his position as deputy of the Japanese fisheries, but a sample of his hair also tested positive for mercury poisoning. Karma.

Dolphins are highly intellectual creatures. It is even stated in The Cove that they can understand us, however, we cannot understand them. And if that information wasn’t enough, we were the story of the dolphin t-boning a tiger shark, saving a surfer’s life. I have always been sickened by the fact that animals are made into a commodity. Humans view them as a way to profit instead of being viewed as what they are – living sentiment beings that are capable of feeling pain and suffering.

All too often humans overlook an animal’s possibility to feel emotion. Alice Walker discusses this in her essay, “Am I Blue?” Walker assigns human characteristics to Blue, the horse. Her use of imagery works to demonstrate this as she describes Blue’s “flexible dark lips, huge, cube like teeth” and how she could see loneliness and boredom in the depth of his eyes until he is placed with a mate. After that point, Walker’s use of anthropomorphism is seen when she recalls seeing a feeling of “this is itness” in his eyes. Blue was placed with a partner in order to conceive, but once his partner was impregnated, she was taken from him. According to Walker, the expression in his eyes changed – “If I had been born into slavery, and my partner had been sold or killed, my eyes would have looked like that.”

I personally found the conclusion to Walker’s essay very powerful, stating that she can almost laugh (because she’s too sad to cry) at the fact that some humans don’t believe animals suffer. She describes a look of disgust in Blue’s eyes, disgust towards humans. I share a similar feeling of disgust. I am disgusted that some people find it acceptable to treat animals as if they don’t feel pain, completely ignoring the animal’s cry for help. They communicate to us when they feel pain, when they are scared, when they don’t want to die… we’re just not listening. As if their sole purpose on this earth is to be used by us, as if they are happy to sacrifice their lives. Walker concludes as she sat down to a steak dinner, “I am eating misery.” That piece of steak that sat on her fork was the flesh of a once living being that trembled with fear before meeting its fate. That piece of steak was a life taken so that someone could temporarily satisfy his or her taste buds. Nothing could ever convince me to find that morally justified.

In author Linda Hogan’s essay “Deify the Wolf” talks about the exploitation humans cause animals. In fact, she chalks up contact with the human world is the number one leading cause of death in wolves. “Deify the Wolf” is both similar to The Cove and “Am I Blue?” in how it expresses how animals have become commodities in human culture. Similar to how dolphins are held in captivity for our viewing pleasure, Hogan ironically speaks of a man who wants to see the threatened wolves before they become extinct and a woman who “thinks seeing the wolves would be like in the movies.” This can also be compared to Walker’s belief that “animals are forced to become for us merely images of what they once so beautifully expressed.”

Hogan talks about a common attitude regarding wolf population to be, “there is no wolf like a dead wolf.” However it’s important to protect the species. Written by Laura Thompson, the article “Howling for Echo: How One Wolf’s Legacy has Taught Us the Importance of Protecting This Species” brings up the benefit the wolf population can have on the ecosystem. For example, in Yellowstone Park, the growing wolf population has brought a natural balance to the ecosystem by controlling the elk herds that were overgrazing vegetation.

William Ralph Inge once said, “We have enslaved the rest of the animal creation, and have treated our distant cousins in fur and feathers so badly that beyond doubt, if they were able to formulate a religion, they would depict the Devil in human form.” Every day, millions of animal lives are sacrificed for fashion, for food, for “sport”, and for entertainment. And what’s revolting is that it’s legal. But just because something is legal does not mean that it is right. This is often viewed as personal choice. There has already been the undeniable fact that our everyday life choices contribute to climate change, resource depletion, and garbage consumption. The choice to contribute to the slaughter of animals isn’t any different. Animal agriculture has been linked to having an impact on the environment and consuming animal products has shown to have an impact socially. A choice stops being personal when it begins to effect the lives of others. Millions of animals have the right to live and can be granted that quality of life we cherish so much, if only we can begin to look outside ourselves. If you don’t like hearing about it, if you don’t like seeing it, and if you wouldn’t like it to happening to you or your loved ones, it is absolutely the time to take action. 

Thousands of dolphins every hunting season are still being slaughtered in Taiji, Japan, unfortunately. If you haven’t done so already, please take part and sign the petition in the effort to save these intelligent creatures. It may seem like a small step but no step is small when it is seen through the eyes of the victim.

Red, White, and Plastic: The American Dream

By Isabelle Naimo

America is a country of consumers, a pre-packaged and processed society. Nothing paints this image to be truer than the online movie entitled The Story of Stuff. Written and narrated by Annie Leonard, the animated short simplifies the complex cycle of material goods. Leonard’s narration was personable. She comes off like the woman next door – a wife and mother. The style of the movie made the information easy to digest and its short length dove right into the facts, leaving the viewer no chance to become bored. This is the sort of movie that should be played in a classroom; it’s friendly to children of all ages. After all, the next generation is the future of our planet.

Not only does Leonard’s friendly and welcoming persona make it watchable, the information she’s feeding us is so downright relatable. Leonard hits home when she talks about “planned obsolescence” and “perceived obsolescence.” The latter refers to goods that are ‘ready to dump.’ A prime example of this is my MacBook that was purchased in 2009. Technology is advancing so rapidly that my laptop is near obsolete. It’s no longer compatible with the newer IPhones and software updates.

So, what happens when my laptop isn’t able to keep up with the upgraded technology? I’ll have to buy a new one and in regard to the price tag of a MacBook, it’s no secret this is exactly what big corporations like Apple want. Perceived obsolescence refers to new technology (the MacBook Pro Apple’s trying to force me to purchase), fashion trends, and other trending material goods. Television commercials flood our brains telling us, the consumer, that we’re not yet good enough – but we might be if we buy this new product. As a woman in her mid-20’s, I know all about this.

Julia Corbett touches base on the irony of consumerism in the chapter titled “Work and Consumer Culture” of Communicating Nature. She discusses the importance, feeling of self worth, and respect that comes with employment in America. But having a job doesn’t equate to happiness or feeling fulfilled, especially if all these hard workers are finding their escape to be at their local shopping mall. “By the 1990s, the average American owned and consumed twice as much … but also had less free time.” Why spend 40 or more hours a week at work, only to spend the hard-earned money on things we don’t need? As noted in the following chapter, “Leisure in Nature as Commodity and Entertainment.” even leisurely activities in nature have become taken over by consumerism. As consumers, we are even told that we need a certain product to enjoy the natural world, whether it is the newest camping tents and portable grills to bug spray.

These consumer ways are destroying the world’s resources, lesser-developed countries, and even America’s own citizens. Blue-collared workers who have no choice but to work long hours, exposed to chemicals, because the money leaves them with no other choice. Television series 30 Days brings its viewers into the lives of such workers first hand with its episode “Working In A Coal Mine.” Morgan Spurlock, creator and host of the series, spends 30 days… you guessed it, working in a coal mine. Spurlock’s concept of putting himself into their shoes and immersing himself into their lifestyle was a captivating method of showcasing the reality of this lifestyle to his viewers. These workers put their lives and health in danger everyday so that the common American can watch TV, turn on the lights, go on the Internet, etc. One miner told Spurlock in regards to why he does it, “The money. Gotta eat. Gotta pay for them toys.”

Additionally, it was shocking and so disgusting to see the filter of the mask Spurlock wore while he was in the mine. After only one hour, the filter was nearly completely clogged with black debris. It was enough to make me want to turn off all the power outlets in my house in hopes of saving someone’s lungs out there.

But this need to consume isn’t only harming humans. It harms wildlife and sea creatures as well. Synthetic Sea exposes this truth with hard-hitting images that are anything but pleasant to see. Dolphins, fish, as well as other marine life feed on plankton in the ocean. But the fact that there is so much waste lingering in the ocean as small particles that can be mistaken as plankton means that these beautiful creatures are actually ingesting trash. The image of a bird’s ripped open carcass revealed contents of plastic man-made materials in his digestive tract. As the old saying goes, “I have to see it to believe it.” And I definitely saw it.

30 Days and Synthetic Sea both allow the viewer to witness the unsettling consequences of consuming resources and producing waste. While seeing the horrific damage that has already been done can be discouraging, steps can be taken to reduce the amounts at which we consume and produce trash. In, “No Impact Man”, Colin Beavan and Lauren Singer both defied the standardized way of living and vowed to live impact-free.

No Impact Man, directed by Justin Schein and Laura Gabbert, follows the yearlong pilgrimage of New York City dwellers Colin Beavan and his family as they strive to reduce their carbon footprint. That means no cars or subways, no electricity in their home, no food that wasn’t locally grown, not even toilet paper or disposable diapers for Beavan’s 2-year-old daughter. What makes this documentary so special is how likeable I find these people to be. Beavan completely embraces this newfound way of life but his witty wife has a hard time even giving up her daily Starbucks. It’s almost as if I see myself in both of them. On one hand, I want to ride my bicycle around joyfully, shopping only at farmer’s markets, totally infatuated with this no impact lifestyle. But on the other hand, no coffee? No toilet paper? Toilet paper?

What allows me to relate to Beavan and his wife as I witness their entertaining journey is how the directors keep the focus on them throughout the documentary. The film is unbiased; depicting both the family’s triumphs and struggles and even including the sour criticism they received. It’s that authenticity that draws in the viewer, granting them the opportunity to find their own conclusion about the no impact lifestyle and conceivably inspire them to embark on their own crusade.

Chelsea Huang for AOL wrote an article about another New Yorker, Laura Singer, who has barely produced any trash in two years. Singer, a 23-year-old, fits the amount of trash she has produced over the two years in a single mason jar. Huang highlights Singer’s clothing style, painting her in our minds as “clad in slouchy black slacks, black crop top and leather moto vest.” Huang also describes Singer’s apartment to be just as stylish with “shabby-chic décor”. Arguably irrelevant information, Huang includes this in the article to show her readers that they don’t have to sacrifice fashionable good looks and comfort in order to save the environment. This tactic is especially appealing to women readers.

Singer felt “hypocritical” as a promoter of sustainability but still using plastic goods, which encouraged her to opt it out of her life altogether. Her story is inspirational, as well as Beavan’s. I’m sometimes plagued with a similar feeling of hypocrisy, and I can imagine my peers involved in sustainability can also relate. Being introduced to Singer and Beavan’s stories on the personal level the article and documentary portrayed can be the extra push to inspire more people to ditch plastic. It can be an unthinkable feet at first but both Singer and Beavan were able to make the change. Both are in two different places in life and prove that anyone, regardless of career and personal life, can do it as well. So, what’s stopping those of us who haven’t? (Besides Starbucks).

Those who live on the West Coast don’t even have to answer that question. Well, sort of. They can buy as many plastic packaged goods as they want but their grocery bags will certainly be anything but. After years of trying, California became the first U.S. state to ban plastic grocery bags. And from what I can gather, that’s only the beginning. The CNN article, written by Ben Rooney, claims that states such as New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts are all considering imposing tax on plastic bags that the shopper would have to pay. As grocery stories like Whole Foods Market and Trader Joes encourage their shoppers to use reusable tote bags and even opt to only provide recycled paper bags, there are still countless other grocery chains that stick with plastic. An added tax would definitely cause people to go plastic-free, even if they do it while kicking and screaming.

It can seem like a no-brainer to ditch plastic bags but there has actually been some speculation suggesting the ban isn’t helping the environment. Oppositions range from reusable and paper bags having a larger carbon footprint, a spike in plastic garbage bag sales (since most shoppers reuse their grocery plastic bags for other domestic needs such as picking up pet waste or as bathroom garbage bag), to the calculation that reusable cotton bags would need to be used 131 times in order to compete with a plastic bag’s contribution to climate change. Whatever the case may be, the need for plastic bags is certainly becoming obsolete. And it’s time to kick our old consumer ways. We, as a society, need to make do and appreciate what we have instead of retreating to the nearest department store in hopes of finding happiness. I, for one, am all for it. Now I no longer have to wear last season’s clothes in shame!